The Citizens' Report
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 16, 2019, 06:20:11 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
25200 Posts in 4013 Topics by 320 Members
Latest Member: SMW
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  The Citizens' Report
|-+  South Carolina
| |-+  Georgetown County SC
| | |-+  Politics and Current Events
| | | |-+  Mr Rothrock will win again
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Mr Rothrock will win again  (Read 207 times)
PBSIAT
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 297


« on: July 03, 2019, 06:18:13 PM »

After Mr Rothrock beat Jack Scoundrel and the city a few years ago over hardee plank you would think they would leave him alone. NO! Now Mr Rothrock is suing and will win for Jack and the city employees slandering his name when he had nothing to do with Mark Mercer depositing campaign signs last year. Go get 'me Mr Rothrock.
Logged
Marty Tennant
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5732



WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 04, 2019, 07:39:52 PM »

Article and copy of lawsuit here:

http://gabnewsonline.com/lawsuit-man-says-he-was-falsely-accused-during-political-sign-case-in-p3054-90.htm
Logged

Notice:  All posts made by me are my OPINION.  I am not responsible for any comments by others!  The Citizens' Report is provided as a public service to the citizens of Georgetown County for them to report and comment on the news.
IWCCTTT
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 487


« Reply #2 on: July 05, 2019, 01:02:37 PM »

I really wish you had not given Scott credit for wrting about it. But at least he did write something. Unlike the Georgetown Times who will never cover it and let people know what is really going on in this town. One thing for sure the Rothrocks made sure old Black Jack didn't get re-elected.
Logged
JW
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 551


« Reply #3 on: July 06, 2019, 12:49:39 PM »

So here we go again. Steve will get a nice check from the city for what they did to him this time and nothing will happen to Jack Scovile and the others who used their position to screw with him. Why is there never any punishment for people like Jack and his short buddy Paige Sawyer? They have cost the taxpayers tons of money over the years. Something should be done.
Logged
Tom Rubillo
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 52


« Reply #4 on: July 07, 2019, 11:35:49 AM »

Will the city pay to defend the ex-mayor and ex-adminstrator or settle cases against them or are they on their own in this one?
Logged
PBSIAT
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 297


« Reply #5 on: July 07, 2019, 01:34:42 PM »

Now that would be justice if Jack has to pay to defend himself. I'm no lawyer but can Steve sue him as a individual and make him pay. For his defense rather than the taxpayer having to fund it?
Logged
Tom Rubillo
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 52


« Reply #6 on: July 07, 2019, 04:20:00 PM »

Since the city is self-insured.  It does not buy liability insurance.  It pays all costs, expenses, settlement amounts or judgments, relying on the Municipal Association's risk management team (SMIRF) to administer claims and handle lawsuits against it.  While called "premiums," the amounts paid to SMIRF each year are, dollar for dollar, all the costs, fees, expenses, etc. that arise out of the cases SMIRF handles for the city, plus a management fee.  So every cent paid in connection with this suit will ultimately come from the pockets of taxpayers.  That being the case, the City Council has a very strong voice in deciding how the tax dollars it collects are spent.

Liability insurance typically does not cover losses arising out of intentional acts.  Coverage for those is almost always specifically excluded from ordinary insurance policies.  The agreement between SMIRF, while not an insurance policy, contains many of the same provisions, including an exclusion for intentional acts.  So there is a legitimate coverage question in this instance, at least as to the defamation claim.  Defamation -- slander -- is an intentional act.  That being the case, at the very least it is reasonable to expect that a "reservation of rights letter" will be sent to the ex-mayor and ex-administrator saying, in effect, that even if it provides them with a defense, it won't pay anything to either settle the case  or any judgment against them.  City Council can insist that, at a minimum, that SMIRF do that.

As far as the alleged civil rights violation, the US Supreme Court ruled many years ago that municipalities are not liable for those unless they are the result of an official policy or on-going practice.  The allegations in this case, on the other hand, raises questions of an isolated incident, not a pattern, policy or practice claim.  The city, under those circumstances, has a strong defense in that regard.  (In my view, the "class of one" claim of a civil rights violation against the city, while it might pass muster against the two individual actors, doesn't hold much water vis-a-vis the city, but my reason for that would take too long to explain here.)  Anyway Since the acts complained of involved an alleged personal vendetta by two individuals, liability for those would typically fall on the individual actors, not the city.  So there's at least the potential of conflicting interests in the defense available to the city on the civil rights claim and the position of the individual defendants who were not acting in any legitimate "official capacity," but did whatever they did strictly on their own  Without getting into details here, there is an apparent conflict between the defense posture of the chief of police ("I was just following orders and harbored no malice") and that of the other two defendants who are alleged to have been advancing a personal, vindictive agenda.  That, and again, the entire episode has absolutely nothing to do with the official business of the city, so the city really shouldn't have any liability.  It is alleged to have arisen entirely out of the reaction of two individuals to the outcome of an election.  Under those circumstances, I'm of the view that the city shouldn't be expected to pay to defend or indemnify those two individuals, but only to defend itself. 

There are motions that can be made to disqualify counsel who appear on behalf of multiple defendants based on the existence of conflicts of interest.  Whether those are pressed or not is a decision that is entirely up to opposing counsel.  The City Council should be heard about that too.  Everyone needs to put aside any personal feelings, rivalries, biases or friendships that might exist in these circumstances, look closely at the potential conflicts of interest and seek out solid, unbiased advice from their respective legal counsel.

Good luck to both Mayor Barber and his new, quite experienced and capable City Administrator in dealing with this mess.  And welcome to Georgetown Madame Administrator.
Logged
Tom Rubillo
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 52


« Reply #7 on: July 08, 2019, 09:52:49 AM »

Among the conflicting interests in this case are the following:    (1) This case has nothing to do with the on-going conduct of the on-going business of the city.  Instead, it arises out of the personal interests of the individual participants in the outcome of an election.  In that sense, it is entirely a personal dispute, not one affecting the rights or interests of the taxpayers.  To the contrary, to the extent that the taxpayers had any interest or opinion in that election, they expressed their views at the polling place when they cast their ballots.  That some dispute has arisen over the conduct of individuals regarding that campaign after it was over and decided has, therefore, absolutely nothing to do with the rights and interests of the taxpayers.  This fact notwithstanding, those taxpayers now may be called upon to absorb some expense or cost because of this personal dispute.  This is, in my view, unfair and creates very direct conflict in interests between the city and the individual defendants -- the ex-mayor and the ex-administrator. 

  (2) From reading between the lines of the complaint in the case and as I recall the initial news accounts of this incident at the time, the ex-mayor denied having any involvement in the incident that is at the heart of the controversy, namely the arrest and prosecution of the man who returned the campaign signs.  If that is the case, the ex-administrator may be laying directly under the wheels of the bus, put there by any denial of involvement by the ex-mayor.  What the ex-mayor knew, when he knew it and what, if anything, he said at the time will, therefore, likely be at issue.  To the extent that his testimony differs from that of the ex-administrator, a very direct conflict of the legal and financial interests of the ex-mayor and the ex-administrator would arise. 

  (3) The chief of police has been named as a defendant.  Like the city, he is something of a bystander in the case.  He had no stake in the outcome of the election and, so far as is known, harbored no animus against anyone.  Instead, the department he heads was called on to make an arrest by the man who was then above him in the chain of command, the now ex-city administrator.  To the extent that the chief has been sued personally, his defense othat he bore no malice against anyone but was simplyf "following orders" separates him from the other defendants, particularly where it comes to the "class of one" allegations complaining of disparate treatment.  To the extent that he is being sued in his "official capacity," like the city he enjoys immunity from claims of civil rights violations for "isolated incidents" like this one.  When it comes to civil rights violations, the city is only liable for those that arise out of on-going patterns, practices or official policies.  The US Supreme Court said that nearly a half century ago.  What all this means is that the city and the chief are aligned in their legal positions here, there is a direct conflict in the defense posture of the chief/city vs. the two ex-officials who are alleged to have been acting out of personal spite or malice.

    This, it can be fairly said, is the sort of mess everyone finds themselves in when individuals are engaging in some sort of vendetta that adversely impacts the entire community.   Be that as it may, one thing seems pretty clear and certain here.  No one lawyer can fairly represent each of these potentially competing defenses and conflicting interests.  That, any the taxpayers certainly should not be called on to foot the very hefty bill involved in resolving this dispute. 
Logged
PBSIAT
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 297


« Reply #8 on: July 08, 2019, 10:48:30 AM »

And the Georgetown waste of my Times will not cover this. And I hope Mr Rothrock drags Jack Scoundrel around for a long time with this one.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!